Southwest Engineering Co. v. Martin Tractor Co., Inc.

Supreme Court of Kansas473 P.2d 18 (1970)

Facts

Southwest Engineering Co. (Southwest) (plaintiff), a general contractor, desired to bid on a government contract to construct lighting facilities at a military base. With a need for generator equipment as a component of the project, Southwest’s construction superintendent, R.E. Cloepfil, contacted Martin Tractor Co. (Martin) (defendant) to price the equipment. On April 12, 1966, a manager at Martin, Ken Hurt, quoted a price of $18,500, and reconfirmed such price by phone on April 13. Southwest submitted a bid for the project on April 14, relying on Martin’s quote of $18,500. The bid was accepted and Southwest reported the acceptance to Martin. On April 28, Cloepfil and Hurt met to discuss the project, at which point the price quote from Martin was increased from $18,500 to $21,500. Notwithstanding Cloepfil’s astonishment over the increase, the men agreed to a sale of the generator equipment for $21,500. They raised, but did not agree upon, a schedule of payment for the equipment. On May 2, Cloepfil submitted a written request to Martin to proceed with drawings and related documentation for the work. On May 24, Hurt wrote a letter to Cloepfil stating that Martin could not proceed as directed because of restrictions and other stipulations imposed by the government and that it was therefore withdrawing “all verbal quotations.” Southwest sued Martin for breach of contract, to which Martin responded that no contract had been formed because no payment terms were agreed upon. The trial court found that an agreement was in fact formed at the meeting on April 28, and judgment was entered for Southwest after a bench trial. Martin appealed.

Rule of Law

Alert

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

Alert

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Fontron, J.)

Alert

The holding and reasoning section includes:

A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;

A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and

What to do next…

You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 265,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,500 briefs, keyed to 196 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.

The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.

Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.

Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

First, login to your Quimbee account

Ready to Ace Law School?

Become a member and get unlimited access to our massive library of
law school study materials, including 664 video lessons and 3,700+
practice questions in 1L, 2L, & 3L subjects, as well as 14,500+ case
briefs keyed to 196 law school casebooks.